[Vision2020] Some comments for Jeff Harkins

[joekc at adelphia.net]

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful comments in response to BJ’s post and my own post. I have a few comments.

In reply to BJ, you wrote:
>Quality of life is a qualitative assessment - 
>and only measurable at the individual personal 
>utility level. It is virtually impossible to 
>compare the utility of one person's "quality of 
>life" with that of another person.  

You are correct that it is difficult to quantify quality of life and to have a quantifiable comparison of one’s quality of life over another’s. Not impossible, by the way, but there are no agreed upon standards for such quantification and comparison. But even if it were impossible to quantify quality of life, that wouldn’t mean that you couldn’t compare one’s quality of life with another’s. This is what BJ means when she says that numbers don’t tell the whole story. What matters most is quality of life and by your own assessment, it is difficult if not impossible to quantify quality of life. Thus, numbers don’t tell the whole story.

Also in response to BJ, you wrote:
>To maintain the status quo in 
>growth (.6% to .7%), we must find a way to house 
>about 150 - 200 families each year in Latah 
>County - that is a mathematical fact.  The 
>challenge in all of this is that those families 
>must have a way to feed and house themselves - 
>they must have economic opportunity.  

The mathematical fact is a conditional one: IF growth continues at a rate of .6% to .7% per year, then 150 – 200 families will need housing. The mathematical fact is not the claim that “we must find a way to house about 150 - 200 families each year in Latah County.” It takes more than just the conditional, mathematical fact to support that value claim. First, it takes the truth of the antecedent of the conditional: that Moscow will continue to grow at the same rate. Second, it takes other value claims, like “grow or die,” with which folks like BJ and I would disagree.

In response to my post, for instance, you note that: "UI will see declining support in Moscow. Demands for educational facilities in the growth areas (e.g. CdA, Twin Falls) are already pressuring the legislature for resources to enhance the educational infrastructure in those communities. While the UI will be getting some of those dollars, the dollars will be spent in those communities, not Moscow." This seems to indicate that the growth rate for Moscow might remain stable. I’m just not sure why this would be a bad thing for Moscow. (I’m not even sure why it would be a bad thing for UI but that is another matter.)

In response to my post you wrote:
>Now comes the economics part.  The literature in 
>economics is well-founded and clear.  When you 
>fetter markets, you increase cost.  When you 
>increase costs, you make your community less 
>desirable for attracting the investment capital 
>necessary to fuel growth.  Creating barriers to 
>entry is a very slippery slope to navigate - it 
>usually results in enormous unintended consequences.

Two points are worth mentioning here. First, there is a real problem when you assume that economics is a science in the same sense that, say, physics is a science. I can accept that generally when you fetter markets, you make your community less desirable. But I refuse to accept that this is a law of nature on the same level as, say, the law of gravity. I think that our community will be more desirable. I know lots of folks who have moved to Moscow specifically because of the desirability of the community. Most of these folks would find it to be a less desirable place than it is now were we to allow for unregulated growth determined by the economic benefits of large corporations like Wal-Mart.

Second, you may be right that in restricting markets we run the risk of unintended and unfortunate consequences. But there are also unintended and unfortunate consequences that will result if we allow the “growth at any cost” model that we’ve adopted until recently. In my opinion, restricting growth is less risky. It is interesting that you point to Rhode Island as an example of what Moscow can become. That seems to support my very point. If I wanted to live in Rhode Island, I’d have moved there. I'm from New Jersey which makes Rhode Island look like Moscow. I wanted to get away from that. (Not that I don't still love New Jersey. I just don't want to live there.)

>But I also see that MCA is predisposed to 
>an anti business posture.  And the 
>group seems to reflect a complete 
>insensitivity to the fact that any cost you 
>impose on business is going to be 
>passed right back to consumers.

As most of you know by now, I am not a spokesperson for MCA. It is a varied group with many various opinions on these topics. I’ll only say that since there are many business owners among the MCA it is incorrect to characterize it as anti-business. Speaking for myself only, I am anti-unfettered growth. I’d like Moscow to encourage businesses that fit well with our current quality of life and our collective plans for the future. Noting several of the other interesting points that you’ve made in your replies, Jeff, I realize that there is a great deal that I have to learn about economic development. I look forward to working with you and others, through ventures like New Cities. If we combine the intellectual resources of our community, I have every hope that we’ll arrive at some consensus that will allow Moscow the opportunity to grow while still maintaining those special characteristics that we all value.

Best, Joe